[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Argument lists: a proposal to shoot at
- To: JAR@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, gls@ZARATHUSTRA
- Subject: Argument lists: a proposal to shoot at
- From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 86 14:55 EDT
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA, Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA, gls@AQUINAS
- In-reply-to: <[AI.AI.MIT.EDU].63675.860630.JAR>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 86 14:30:51 EDT
From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 86 13:57 EDT
From: Guy Steele <gls at Think.COM>
Maybe it's not worth eliminating K, I grant. However, while it may be
reasonable for the author of the code to write (&key), it's not clear
that that information is important to a potential caller who needs to
know what arguments may be passed. Such a function accepts no keyword
arguments directly, and does not have &allow-other-keys, and so,
operationally speaking, what is the need to know that &key was there?
If the formal parameter list is (&key), then an actual parameter list of
(:foo 7 :allow-other-keys t :bar 'a) is legal, n'est-ce pas?
Touche! Magnifique! (Or, as Frank Zappa titled an album, Zoot allures!)
What a wonderful language. Therefore the K value is not redundant after all.